Ninety-One Million from Ownership

In December 2013, Manchester City board member Simon Pearce emailed an executive at the club's main sponsor, Etihad Airways. According to regulatory investigators citing documents published by Der Spiegel, Pearce detailed an arrangement to split the sponsorship commitment—eight million from the airline, ninety-one million from the owners.

Years of headlines followed, leading a listener to ask how City keep getting away with financial rule breaches, and why are they still allowed to play. The answer starts with a premise correction: they have not walked away. Yesterday, September 25th, 2026, an independent commission delivered its long-awaited decision, reportedly finding Manchester City guilty on 114 of 115 Premier League charges. We are unpacking what the panel found, why the legal battle took eight years, and what penalties could follow.

This marks the largest financial compliance case in English football history: 115 charges spanning nine seasons between 2009 and 2018, supported by more than 500,000 pieces of evidence. The allegations center on what investigators call disguised equity funding, where club owners secretly fund commercial deals out of their own pockets to bypass league spending limits.

The roots go back to September 2008, when the Abu Dhabi United Group agreed to a 200-million-pound takeover of the club, about 265 million dollars. The dispute broke into the open in November 2018 through Der Spiegel's Football Leaks reporting, encompassing accusations that City failed to provide accurate financial accounts for revenue and operating costs, while concealing payments to managers and players. To see how that unfolded, the first question is why a single historical dispute ended up dominating the back pages for an entire decade.

The story stayed in the headlines because investigators were not uncovering new violations each season. The fight started when UEFA, the governing body that runs European football, handed City a penalty totaling 60 million euros, equal to about 68 million dollars, under a negotiated settlement. Officials eventually returned most of that penalty once the club proved it followed those spending limits.

The entire landscape shifted in late 2018, after Der Spiegel published those internal leaks. The Premier League launched its own inquiry that December, but the probe stalled almost immediately. It disappeared behind closed doors into years of procedural combat: first an arbitral tribunal ordered City to produce its financial records, and then the High Court rejected the club's bid to halt the tribunal.

That resistance explains why this took years while other clubs were penalized in months. Under the Premier League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules—the financial regulations capping allowable losses so clubs stay solvent—normal inquiries are simple audits. As football finance expert Kieran Maguire told the BBC, what happened with Everton and Nottingham Forest was "an open-and-shut case." Forest took a four-point deduction for overspending, while Everton lost 8 points. But City did not admit routine overspending; they fought every single charge of deliberate balance-sheet deceit.

Once charges landed, the entire dispute headed into private arbitration. A tribunal met behind closed doors in London for a 12-week hearing, and the panel spent almost 2 years deliberating before arriving at a judgment.

That is why those headlines kept resurfacing: they never reflected fresh misconduct every year. It was a single era, spanning 9 seasons alongside claims of stonewalling investigators, carried across 8 years of intensifying legal battles. Which leaves a lingering question: why did European regulators fail to make earlier sanctions stick years ago?

In February 2020, UEFA's adjudicatory chamber decided City had misled them regarding sponsor money from Etihad and the UAE telecom sponsor Etisalat. That ruling brought a two-year suspension from European football alongside a 30 million euro fine.

By July 2020, that suspension unraveled at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Swiss panel known as CAS. As The Guardian reported, the judges threw out the ban, ordering City to pay just 10 million euros for refusing to cooperate with investigators. The whole case hinged on a calendar deadline. European rules included a statute of limitations—a five-year cutoff date after which older actions can no longer be prosecuted. CAS determined that central sponsorship claims were time-barred by that rule, while others were simply unproven. Above all, City avoided the ban because of the ticking clock at CAS.

What witnesses said on the stand carried equal weight. Board member Simon Pearce was questioned directly about whether he ever set up funding for Etihad's commercial commitments. When asked under oath about arranging money for the airline's sponsor dues, his response was firm: “Absolutely, categorically not.” Journalist Nick Harris brought up another angle: Pearce's December 2013 memo arranging that 91 million pound subsidy came out only after the panel overturned the ban. That paper trail appeared to contradict his sworn statements, but when asked about the clash, City refused to say anything.

None of that protection carried over once English authorities stepped in. Premier League regulations have no statute of limitations, reportedly giving domestic investigators the power to examine alleged breaches dating back to 2009. Without that procedural shield in place, the independent commission had to confront the exact financial evidence that CAS had previously set aside.

Investigators built their case around a paper trail of banking records and internal messages. Those filings showed that Jaber Mohamed, a senior aide from Abu Dhabi, personally sent 30 million pounds directly to City to cover Etisalat's sponsorship payments. In the view of UEFA adjudicators who reviewed the transfers, the telecom firm was completely bypassed, turning what looked like commercial revenue into disguised equity funding straight from the club's owners.

The investigation also focused on dual contracts. That is where a team reports one wage figure to league officials while funneling secret, extra money through an offshore partner, keeping costs off the local books so the club can stay under spending limits. Reports say the panel determined that compensation tied to former manager Roberto Mancini was quietly funneled through a consultancy deal with the Abu Dhabi club Al Jazira, covering 8 distinct charges. A further 6 counts were upheld over hidden player pay, including image-rights deals and side compensation.

All of this fed into the liability ruling. When the panel reportedly concluded that commercial revenue was actually funded by ownership, the decision pointed straight back to the memo from earlier: eight million from the airline, ninety-one million from the owners.

Altogether, reports show that arbitrators backed all 54 counts involving sponsorship accounts, plus every charge tied to following league and European financial standards. The panel also affirmed 34 charges alleging that City failed to cooperate with investigators during the long-running probe.

The club contested every claim, asserting all along that it possessed a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" confirming its sponsorships were authentic business deals. Brushing aside the leaked records as "out-of-context materials purportedly hacked or stolen" to smear the team's standing, City maintained they followed every rule. Yet with 114 counts reportedly sustained, rival fans are left asking why, if guilt was reportedly found yesterday on such a massive scale, City still appear in the Premier League standings today.

City are still on the pitch because Friday brought only a liability decision. While the panel reportedly upheld those 114 charges from earlier, it has not settled on a punishment yet. Arbitrators often rely on bifurcated proceedings—a simple two-stage setup where you first resolve whether someone broke the rules before you ever touch penalties. That procedural divide answers the question from earlier: why are they still allowed to play?

When this independent commission gathers again to hand down penalties, Rule W.64—the Premier League's rule governing disciplinary sanctions—provides immense latitude. The panel's reported options run anywhere from unlimited cash fines and transfer curbs to docking points, stripping past trophies, or even recommending outright expulsion from the league.

Other teams are already lining up. Reporting from The Independent shows Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, and Tottenham have formally preserved rights under Section W to seek compensation for lost revenue, sums that could reportedly top 200 million pounds. For rival supporters, it comes down to basic fairness. Remembering a four-point deduction for overspending given to Forest, they feel 114 violations justify kicking the club out entirely. As one Forest fan put it, "Anything less than expulsion wouldn’t do it justice at all."

City's leadership hasn't backed down. A club spokesperson stressed that "the Premier League process remains ongoing, with significant elements to be completed, and subject to strict confidentiality," while chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak said "our confidence and intent in proving the club’s innocence is just as strong as when this began." Still, sports lawyers emphasize that Rule W.51.7 forces any sanction to stay proportionate. James Hill, a legal director at Onside Law, observed that panels rarely like deciding trophies in arbitration hearings, which means points deductions would probably land on future seasons instead. All eyes now turn to what happens once the commission actually selects its penalty.

The moment punishments are handed down, a new countdown begins. According to The Guardian's account of the league rulebook, an appeal must be submitted by email within 14 days. That triggers a fresh three-member Appeal Board, and hearings must conclude within 12 weeks.

There is no Swiss rescue this time, because the ticking clock at CAS cannot help them. League rules reportedly offer no path to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, keeping any challenge inside the Premier League’s process. Beyond that, the English court system allows only narrow review under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. A judge cannot re-examine evidence or overturn findings of fact; the court can intervene only for a lack of jurisdiction or serious procedural failure. With appeals expected, reports indicate the final outcome could push into 2027.

That drawn-out timetable carries enormous weight because football's broader credibility is at stake. Since the 2008 buyout, City have won eight Premier League titles, a run now shadowed by doubt. At the same time, ministers are establishing an Independent Football Regulator to protect clubs' financial soundness and systemic resilience. Political patience is wearing thin. As Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, “This has got to come to some sort of conclusion relatively quickly.”

So to answer our listener directly: Manchester City didn't walk away unscathed. With the independent panel reportedly finding them guilty on 114 counts, the club faced the reckoning fans had awaited through years of controversy. What felt like an endless escape was simply the deliberate reality of English arbitration. Proving years of covert accounting had to happen before any penalties could reach the pitch.

For the full background on the case, explore the Premier League's 115 charges against Manchester City. And follow the Premier League; we have more stories on it so you are prepared as proceedings continue. Thanks for listening. We'll catch you next time on Angle.